Future versions of Firefox on Windows 98

[erpdude8]

Release candidate 2 for Firefox 2.0 is released:

Firefox RC2

Current users of firefox release candidate 1 can automatically update it to release candidate 2.

Firefox 2.0 RC2 I've heard has been buggy. RC3 now released:

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho/all-rc.html

K-Ninja 2.04 released:

http://www.geocities.com/grenleef/

and K-Meleon 1.02 was posted a few weeks ago:

http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?id=Download

[ivanbuto]

It's nice that you keep posting these links, although also somewhat redundant IMO. The point of this whole thread should have been, and still is, to discuss Firefox 3 and Gecko 1.9 support for Windows 98. I have yet to witness a discussion in this regard.

[BenoitRen]

Yeah, I'm also still waiting for a discussion on this. Here's something I learned about. Apparently you can have support for Unicode applications on Windows 95 if you install the Microsoft Layer for Unicode, known as Unicows. So that's one thing out of the way.

[erpdude8]

Yeah, I'm also still waiting for a discussion on this. Here's something I learned about. Apparently you can have support for Unicode applications on Windows 95 if you install the Microsoft Layer for Unicode, known as Unicows. So that's one thing out of the way.

not possible, BenoitRen. Firefox 2.0, both the RC and final releases, crash under Win95.

so forget about using Unicows under Win95, use it under Win98 or WinME instead to run Firefox 2.0 or 3.0

BTW - final release of FF 2.0 posted here:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

It's nice that you keep posting these links, although also somewhat redundant IMO. The point of this whole thread should have been, and still is, to discuss Firefox 3 and Gecko 1.9 support for Windows 98. I have yet to witness a discussion in this regard.

well, ivanbuto, there hasnt been much of talk about Firefox 3 and Gecko 1.9 stuff because nobody, I mean NOBODY has done some ACTUAL testing of FF 3.0 and have mentioned how well FF 3 does on a Win9xME system! perhaps you should start testing out FF 3.0 in your spare time and tell us how FF 3 runs on your Win9xME machines.

Go here and start testing the latest "nightly" build of FF 3.0 alpha 1:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...y/latest-trunk/

personally, I'll hold off until Mozilla releases a public beta of Firefox 3.0 which may happen either near the end of 2006 or in early 2007

Edited October 25, 2006 by erpdude8

[ivanbuto]

well, ivanbuto, there hasnt been much of talk about Firefox 3 and Gecko 1.9 stuff because nobody, I mean NOBODY has done some ACTUAL testing of FF 3.0 and have mentioned how well FF 3 does on a Win9xME system! perhaps you should start testing out FF 3.0 in your spare time and tell us how FF 3 runs on your Win9xME machines.

Go here and start testing the latest "nightly" build of FF 3.0 alpha 1:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...y/latest-trunk/

If you had done some reading, you would know that the trunk no longer works on Windows 98.

Please reread my initial post, and especially go over the stuff at bugzilla and in the mozillazine folders, before you make further comments and give out further advice.

[galahs]

I really can't see Win98 being supported in FF3. I am just not sure there is the interest in doing so.

In saying that it will be a shame that we arn't left with a Firefox browser for Win9x that passes Acid2.

Whilst I am a Firefox 2.0 user (On my trusty Pentium Pro 200MHz) , I have already begun using alternative browsers on occasion like Opera 9.02 (it passes Acid2 and is getting better and better all the time).

I guess the real question to ask is.... how hard would it be to integrate support for Win9x into Firefox 3?

1. Is it possible

2. Is it feasible

3. Is it worth the effort?

[ivanbuto]

1. Is it possible

2. Is it feasible

3. Is it worth the effort?

1. Yes. Again, people, please read the links and the stuff that has already been posted before making comments!!

2. Opinions may vary on this one. I, for one, can't judge. How difficult the effort would be can only be judged by somebody competent in C++ and programming.

[BenoitRen]

not possible, BenoitRen. Firefox 2.0, both the RC and final releases, crash under Win95.

Part of the reason why Firefox 2.0 crashes under Windows 95 is that it doesn't understand Unicode. It can help, though I would have to test my theory.

so forget about using Unicows under Win95, use it under Win98 or WinME instead to run Firefox 2.0 or 3.0

Who says I'm using Firefox? I use SeaMonkey, thank you very much. SeaMonkey 1.1 Alpha ran just fine under Windows 95, and I would assume the Beta nightlies do too.

In saying that it will be a shame that we arn't left with a Firefox browser for Win9x that passes Acid2.

People should obsess less about that test. It is not an indication of being standards-compliant. Look it up, Gecko supports 90+% of CSS. That's actually quite good. The Acid2 test was primarily made to show the most common CSS flaws of rendering engines.

3. Is it worth the effort?

Considering that most people are going to use thexe Win9x boxes for at least a couple more years, I'd say yes.

[erpdude8]

not possible, BenoitRen. Firefox 2.0, both the RC and final releases, crash under Win95.

Part of the reason why Firefox 2.0 crashes under Windows 95 is that it doesn't understand Unicode. It can help, though I would have to test my theory.

WRONG, BenoitRen! You have NOT been paying attention as to why FF2 doesnt work under Win95:

LOOK HERE!

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353537

even if the unicows.dll file is installed on a Win95 system, FF 2.0 STILL crashes when attempting to run FF2

perhaps I wasnt clear on that earlier, sorry for the inconvienience

BTW - I'm beta testing the latest nightly build of Seamonkey 1.1b under WinME/XP - stable

same with K-Meleon browser found here:

http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/

Edited October 27, 2006 by erpdude8

[LLXX]

Someone should just tell those d*mn developers to stop using 2K and above -specific APIs.

Why would they have wanted to anyway - it's not as if there's some revolutionary functionality there.

[erpdude8]

Someone should just tell those d*mn developers to stop using 2K and above -specific APIs.

Why would they have wanted to anyway - it's not as if there's some revolutionary functionality there.

yeah, absolutely right, LLXX! I mean, what's so special for them to make Firefox3/Gecko 1.9 specifically use W2k/XP API/DLL files; a real pain below the waist for w98/me users!

[myelin]

Drop support for pre-Win2k platforms (Win9x/Me/NT4) for Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3)

Question no.1 : Is this bug resolved or not. I mean have all the missing libraries are patched or fixed or not, or are they still in testing phase, or is the work halted?

Question no.2 : When will the FF 3 testing releases be released?

[Petr]

Drop support for pre-Win2k platforms (Win9x/Me/NT4) for Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3)

Question no.1 : Is this bug resolved or not. I mean have all the missing libraries are patched or fixed or not, or are they still in testing phase, or is the work halted?

Question no.2 : When will the FF 3 testing releases be released?

Answer 1: This bug is resolved, it means that the support for pre-Win2k platforms (Win9x/Me/NT4) for Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3) had been dropped.

Answer 2: Nightly builds of FF3 are available here: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...y/latest-trunk/

Petr

[myelin]

Answer 1: This bug is resolved, it means that the support for pre-Win2k platforms (Win9x/Me/NT4) for Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3) had been dropped.

Answer 2: Nightly builds of FF3 are available here: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...y/latest-trunk/

Petr

Thats sad. Anyway thanks for replying. One more query

Question: What are those patches for at the beginning at this bug: Drop support for Pre 2K

[Petr]

Question: What are those patches for at the beginning at this bug: Drop support for Pre 2K

I don't know, just rough guess: probably these patches implement "Drop support for Pre 2K".

Petr